In today's class, Professor Yake brought up a very interesting point about "rational morality." I would like to comment on it here.
I like the implications behind this idea of "rational morality." It seems, to me, to speak to the idea that we should question all of our assumptions, and only keep those for which we can find a rational basis. This, to me, is a view of high merit, for anyone. There is never any harm in exploring the roots of our views and having a solid foundation for holding what values we do hold.
I think, however, that trying to then apply this "rational morality" to art gets rocky. Art, in my view, does not exist solely as an expression of morality or moral living. Rather, art can, and should, reflect the realities of our lives. This is extremely important, as often, we can be blind to the reality around us, and fail to notice the proverbial elephant in the room.
To illustrate this point of cultural blindness, I'll draw an example from a course I took over the summer. In our society today, heterosexuality is so pervasive in all strata of social functioning, that it is considered to be the "norm" by which we judge everything else. This manifests itself in many ways. A famous example are the "coming out stories" we expect of, for example, homosexuals. Heterosexuality is so prevalent that there need be no explanation for the "discovery" of one's heterosexuality, but society demands a story, a reason, for one's "homosexuality."
In the same vein of the "heterosexual invisible" would be the rituals of marriage. This concept of marriage, of the wife in a white dress, the father giving the bride to the husband, etc, is so ingrained in our cultural consciousness that many, if not most, people are unaware of the historical symbolism behind the symbolism. The white dress is a symbol of the bride's virginity (which is questionable in today's society, and almost certainly so in the case of remarriages). The father giving the bride away is representative of the social view of women as property -- a woman is her father's property until she is married, at which point she becomes her husband's property, making the entire marriage ceremony a celebration of what is, at its core, a financial transaction.
How does this all relate to art? Simple. Art can, and should, function to expose such things to our larger cultural consciousness. Art is a perfect vehicle for revealing these sorts of truths that have become lost to the culture, and thus a great potential catalyst for social change where change is needed.
Hooray for interdisciplinary analogies! :)
... and now that I've just used a smiley in a graded blog, I shall end with a question: Should art serve as a "mirror to society," revealing the flaws in our society that we are often unconscious of, or should art restrict itself to utopian depictions of "high morality?"
Showing posts with label art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label art. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2009
Art "Inducing Immorality," and Racism in Art
I'm going to be blogging like crazy this week. I can already see that.
I'm going to tackle the topics in my title in reverse order. First, "racism" in art. It was brought up today that, a while back, there was a cartoon which depicted Obama as a monkey. I would like to begin by pointing out the hundreds, if not thousands, of depictions of our previous president, George W. Bush, as a monkey. The man looks like one, and he's about as civilized as one. The point here is that political cartoons, to make a point, characterize politicians as animals. This is not new, and therefore I do not consider the cartoon in question to be anything other than politics, or political cartoons, as usual.
Does this make the political cartoons somehow reprehensible? Perhaps. But I would contest that despite this, the artist has a right to produce it, just as the viewers have the right to be offended by it. Anything beyond that goes in to dangerous territory.
So, tying in to the idea of art "inducing immorality..." Professor Yake brought up a hypothetical porn movie, but I would like to take a real-world example: the film "The Triumph of the Will." "The Triumph of the Will" is arguably one of the most famous, and successful, propaganda films in history. It portrays the rise of the Nazi party as a revitalization of Germany, and casts Hitler into an almost-Messianic role for the German people. It served to solidify Hitler's popularity in Germany, and secure his position as Fuhrer of the so-called 'Third Reich.'
It is no secret that Hitler commissioned the mass slaughter of millions of innocents. The propaganda film "The Triumph of the Will" was certainly a powerful tool in building popular support for a government and ideology that is near-universally accepted today as pure evil. There is no way a rational human being can honestly legitimize the murder of millions of innocents (numbers which, incidentally, included a large number of my own relatives on my paternal side). However, despite the fact that "The Triumph of the Will" glorified this government and the man who would ultimately unleash one of the most destructive wars of the twentieth century, can we really call the film itself "immoral?" I do not think this is the case.
Why? The intentions of the film maker may have been immoral -- the glorification of Hitler. Hitler's intentions were almost certainly immoral -- "Endlösung," or the Final Solution, a policy that lead to the murder of millions of Jews. This does not, however, impose this immorality on the film. An object is inherently amoral. Morality refers to actions, to conduct, and perhaps to a lesser extent to ideas, but cannot, and should not, be afixed to objects, art objects included.
To end with a couple of questions: 1) Does a common tactic in political cartoons become racist when the politician being lampooned happens to be of an "ethnic minority?" 2) Is there any way to legitimately apply moral judgments to human creations?
I'm going to tackle the topics in my title in reverse order. First, "racism" in art. It was brought up today that, a while back, there was a cartoon which depicted Obama as a monkey. I would like to begin by pointing out the hundreds, if not thousands, of depictions of our previous president, George W. Bush, as a monkey. The man looks like one, and he's about as civilized as one. The point here is that political cartoons, to make a point, characterize politicians as animals. This is not new, and therefore I do not consider the cartoon in question to be anything other than politics, or political cartoons, as usual.
Does this make the political cartoons somehow reprehensible? Perhaps. But I would contest that despite this, the artist has a right to produce it, just as the viewers have the right to be offended by it. Anything beyond that goes in to dangerous territory.
So, tying in to the idea of art "inducing immorality..." Professor Yake brought up a hypothetical porn movie, but I would like to take a real-world example: the film "The Triumph of the Will." "The Triumph of the Will" is arguably one of the most famous, and successful, propaganda films in history. It portrays the rise of the Nazi party as a revitalization of Germany, and casts Hitler into an almost-Messianic role for the German people. It served to solidify Hitler's popularity in Germany, and secure his position as Fuhrer of the so-called 'Third Reich.'
It is no secret that Hitler commissioned the mass slaughter of millions of innocents. The propaganda film "The Triumph of the Will" was certainly a powerful tool in building popular support for a government and ideology that is near-universally accepted today as pure evil. There is no way a rational human being can honestly legitimize the murder of millions of innocents (numbers which, incidentally, included a large number of my own relatives on my paternal side). However, despite the fact that "The Triumph of the Will" glorified this government and the man who would ultimately unleash one of the most destructive wars of the twentieth century, can we really call the film itself "immoral?" I do not think this is the case.
Why? The intentions of the film maker may have been immoral -- the glorification of Hitler. Hitler's intentions were almost certainly immoral -- "Endlösung," or the Final Solution, a policy that lead to the murder of millions of Jews. This does not, however, impose this immorality on the film. An object is inherently amoral. Morality refers to actions, to conduct, and perhaps to a lesser extent to ideas, but cannot, and should not, be afixed to objects, art objects included.
To end with a couple of questions: 1) Does a common tactic in political cartoons become racist when the politician being lampooned happens to be of an "ethnic minority?" 2) Is there any way to legitimately apply moral judgments to human creations?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
"Art" By Non-Human Beings
Betsy asked: Why do you think most human beings are so reluctant to consider the intentional artistic expression of mammals and birds as art?
To begin, I would consider "intentional artistic expression of non-human animals" to be a rather dubious claim. To our knowledge (or at least to mine), the one characteristic that differentiates humans from non-humans is the fact that humans are self-aware. We are aware of our own existence, and have the unique capability of projecting that awareness. This allows us to think rationally, to imagine things that are not real, to feel empathy for other beings. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence of any non-human animals possessing these mental capacities, at least to the extent to which we possess them.
One of the key elements of (human) artistic expression is the intention for the art to point to something beyond itself. We can look at a painting and not see it as paint on a canvas, but as representative of something beyond itself. If the painting is a landscape, for example, we can see the landscape in it, imagine it in our mind's eye, imagine being there. This is a mental capability that non-humans lack, to the best of our knowledge.
Because other animals do not have this mental capacity, it is therefore questionable that they could thus intentionally create an artwork. Imitation is not necessarily evidence of artistic intent. My not-insignificant knowledge of animal behavior leads me to the understanding that non-human animals lack the capacity for such purely artistic intention. They are driven by instinct, by genetic programming and learned behaviors that are used exclusively for the survival and perpetuation of the species. The "architectural structures" they produce are not intended to be artistic, but to be pragmatic, to provide shelter. The bird's song is not meant to be artistic, but to attract a mate so that the bird may reproduce. Their "found art" is not intended to be viewed and appreciated artistically, but again, solely as an avenue for attracting a mate.
Whether or not this is true may yet be proved false, but this is my understanding, and I am sure it is widely shared among humans. For these reasons, aestheticians are likely reluctant to conclude that animals are even capable of intentional artistic creation, let alone if their "creations" are worthy of artistic appreciation.
To end with a question (that I intend to later blog about): What are the differences between "aesthetic objects" and "art objects?" Or do such differences exist?
To begin, I would consider "intentional artistic expression of non-human animals" to be a rather dubious claim. To our knowledge (or at least to mine), the one characteristic that differentiates humans from non-humans is the fact that humans are self-aware. We are aware of our own existence, and have the unique capability of projecting that awareness. This allows us to think rationally, to imagine things that are not real, to feel empathy for other beings. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence of any non-human animals possessing these mental capacities, at least to the extent to which we possess them.
One of the key elements of (human) artistic expression is the intention for the art to point to something beyond itself. We can look at a painting and not see it as paint on a canvas, but as representative of something beyond itself. If the painting is a landscape, for example, we can see the landscape in it, imagine it in our mind's eye, imagine being there. This is a mental capability that non-humans lack, to the best of our knowledge.
Because other animals do not have this mental capacity, it is therefore questionable that they could thus intentionally create an artwork. Imitation is not necessarily evidence of artistic intent. My not-insignificant knowledge of animal behavior leads me to the understanding that non-human animals lack the capacity for such purely artistic intention. They are driven by instinct, by genetic programming and learned behaviors that are used exclusively for the survival and perpetuation of the species. The "architectural structures" they produce are not intended to be artistic, but to be pragmatic, to provide shelter. The bird's song is not meant to be artistic, but to attract a mate so that the bird may reproduce. Their "found art" is not intended to be viewed and appreciated artistically, but again, solely as an avenue for attracting a mate.
Whether or not this is true may yet be proved false, but this is my understanding, and I am sure it is widely shared among humans. For these reasons, aestheticians are likely reluctant to conclude that animals are even capable of intentional artistic creation, let alone if their "creations" are worthy of artistic appreciation.
To end with a question (that I intend to later blog about): What are the differences between "aesthetic objects" and "art objects?" Or do such differences exist?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Ethics and Art: The Question of Pornography
The question of forgeries is undoubtedly a question of morals over merit. It does a disservice to the work to claim that a work is any less accomplished just because of its origins, or of the intent of the artist. But the question of morals is not unique to forgeries.
Many of the arguments pertaining to pornography do not even begin to consider any of the merits of the work. Pornography is written off as art not for any intrinsic value it has, but because of a moral judgment that pornography results in evil, i.e. lust, objectification of the person (particularly of women), or instigating sexual crimes. The arguments ignore any value that these works may have.
To show how ridiculous this is, allow me to take a couple of examples. James Joyce's novel, "Ulysses," was banned for a while in the United States because it was labeled pornography. It was banned despite its clear literary merit, and today it is considered a fine example of literature.
Another example of this is "The Story of O" (which was, incidentally, written by an upper class French woman). This, too, was banned for a time because of its fairly explicit descriptions of sadomasochism. It is now considered to have literary, and thus artistic, value, despite the heavy eroticism in the book.
The label itself of "pornography" becomes suspect, as it makes a judgment based on shifting moral values in society. One generations smut is the next generation's literature. It is therefore rather obvious that making such moral judgments about a work disregards any value the work may have. This is not to say that all such pieces are unjustly belittled, but that there are some for which the hasty denouncement causes we, the art-viewing public, to miss out on quality pieces of art.
For a closing question, I pose this: should any art be censored? Are there any qualities of a piece of art for which the piece can legitimately be censored?
Many of the arguments pertaining to pornography do not even begin to consider any of the merits of the work. Pornography is written off as art not for any intrinsic value it has, but because of a moral judgment that pornography results in evil, i.e. lust, objectification of the person (particularly of women), or instigating sexual crimes. The arguments ignore any value that these works may have.
To show how ridiculous this is, allow me to take a couple of examples. James Joyce's novel, "Ulysses," was banned for a while in the United States because it was labeled pornography. It was banned despite its clear literary merit, and today it is considered a fine example of literature.
Another example of this is "The Story of O" (which was, incidentally, written by an upper class French woman). This, too, was banned for a time because of its fairly explicit descriptions of sadomasochism. It is now considered to have literary, and thus artistic, value, despite the heavy eroticism in the book.
The label itself of "pornography" becomes suspect, as it makes a judgment based on shifting moral values in society. One generations smut is the next generation's literature. It is therefore rather obvious that making such moral judgments about a work disregards any value the work may have. This is not to say that all such pieces are unjustly belittled, but that there are some for which the hasty denouncement causes we, the art-viewing public, to miss out on quality pieces of art.
For a closing question, I pose this: should any art be censored? Are there any qualities of a piece of art for which the piece can legitimately be censored?
Friday, September 25, 2009
Defining "Art," and Is Philosophy Art?
In his blog, Jacob Wheeler asked the excellent question, "How do you define art?" I spent a good portion of Art & Philosophy trying to figure out how I would answer this question (as my posts for that class attest), but I will restate it here: Art is the Intentional exercise of Original Creative thought Expressing some Idea or Emotion in some Medium.
Intention indicates that there is an active, conscious effort by the artist to create a work of art. It doesn't "just happen."
Original, Creative thought indicates that the piece is unique. There is nothing else quite like it, and it is purely the product of the artist's imagination.
Expression of an Idea or Emotion indicates that art is a communicative act. It exists, not for itself (hence my hatred of some "modern art," "art" undertaken for "art's sake"), but for the viewer. It must share an Emotion or Idea.
The Medium is the route through which the Emotion or Idea is expressed. It can be the written word, marble, paint and canvas, or sound, but whatever it is, it is something that can be perceived by the viewer, and thus completes the communication of the art.
Now that I have defined "art," I will address the question Betsy posed: "Is philosophy an art?"
I will not argue that philosophical works could certainly be works of art. There is no reason that a work filled with philosophical undertones could not be a grand work of art. But is the subject itself art? I do not believe so. Philosophy can certainly be expressed in art, but I would not call the subject itself art. When philosophy is expressed in a medium, it then has the potential to be art, but only if there is the CONSCIOUS INTENTION of the philosopher/artist that it BE a work of art. Lacking this intention, a philosophical work is not also a work of art.
To end with a question: What value, if any, is there in an "authentic" musical performance, or is it merely a matter of differing tastes?
Intention indicates that there is an active, conscious effort by the artist to create a work of art. It doesn't "just happen."
Original, Creative thought indicates that the piece is unique. There is nothing else quite like it, and it is purely the product of the artist's imagination.
Expression of an Idea or Emotion indicates that art is a communicative act. It exists, not for itself (hence my hatred of some "modern art," "art" undertaken for "art's sake"), but for the viewer. It must share an Emotion or Idea.
The Medium is the route through which the Emotion or Idea is expressed. It can be the written word, marble, paint and canvas, or sound, but whatever it is, it is something that can be perceived by the viewer, and thus completes the communication of the art.
Now that I have defined "art," I will address the question Betsy posed: "Is philosophy an art?"
I will not argue that philosophical works could certainly be works of art. There is no reason that a work filled with philosophical undertones could not be a grand work of art. But is the subject itself art? I do not believe so. Philosophy can certainly be expressed in art, but I would not call the subject itself art. When philosophy is expressed in a medium, it then has the potential to be art, but only if there is the CONSCIOUS INTENTION of the philosopher/artist that it BE a work of art. Lacking this intention, a philosophical work is not also a work of art.
To end with a question: What value, if any, is there in an "authentic" musical performance, or is it merely a matter of differing tastes?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Oh, Aesthetics Class... You Amuse Me.
I know not how many of you bloggers are blogging for credit, but I would like to point out something I find rather humorous: there appear to have been more responses to my questions than to any questions posed by anyone else, a tad absurd when you take into account the fact that I do this for my own intellectual exercise rather than for a grade.
Since, as previously stated, this blog is ungraded, I shall turn my attention to a less tasteful topic: the topic of pornography. Yes, pornography. Given that I have virtually no social life, I have begun to do research relating to the thesis of my research paper -- that thesis being that pornography is art.
This is doubtless going to be a contentious issue. I will readily admit that some pornography, particularly that which is so widely available on the internet, is distasteful, vulgar, unpleasant to look at. In my own travels across the internet, I have come across things that cannot be unseen, however much I desire to unsee these awful... things. Does this discount it as art? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
It would, of course, be quite difficult to have a discussion about pornography without at least touching upon the sensitive moral issues surrounding it. There are myriad arguments surrounding the ethical issues that pornography presents us with, but I will, to the best of my ability attempt to steer clear of these in order to focus in on the aesthetic value of pornography. We shall soon see if this is even possible.
I will, of course, refrain from posting links to pornography within my blog as I delve in to this question. It is far from my intention to offend anyone. I will, however, trace the course of my thesis here as I explore the topic, and quite possibly pose questions that I come across in an attempt to get a wide variety of perspectives on the issue and thus assist in the writing of my paper.
To end, I shall leave a discussion question related to class today: What is the practical value in distinguishing "major" art forms from "minor" art forms, if there is one?
Since, as previously stated, this blog is ungraded, I shall turn my attention to a less tasteful topic: the topic of pornography. Yes, pornography. Given that I have virtually no social life, I have begun to do research relating to the thesis of my research paper -- that thesis being that pornography is art.
This is doubtless going to be a contentious issue. I will readily admit that some pornography, particularly that which is so widely available on the internet, is distasteful, vulgar, unpleasant to look at. In my own travels across the internet, I have come across things that cannot be unseen, however much I desire to unsee these awful... things. Does this discount it as art? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
It would, of course, be quite difficult to have a discussion about pornography without at least touching upon the sensitive moral issues surrounding it. There are myriad arguments surrounding the ethical issues that pornography presents us with, but I will, to the best of my ability attempt to steer clear of these in order to focus in on the aesthetic value of pornography. We shall soon see if this is even possible.
I will, of course, refrain from posting links to pornography within my blog as I delve in to this question. It is far from my intention to offend anyone. I will, however, trace the course of my thesis here as I explore the topic, and quite possibly pose questions that I come across in an attempt to get a wide variety of perspectives on the issue and thus assist in the writing of my paper.
To end, I shall leave a discussion question related to class today: What is the practical value in distinguishing "major" art forms from "minor" art forms, if there is one?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Telfer's description of the art of food as "simple" and "minor"
I feel as though a lot was said today in class on the subject, but I did not have the opportunity to express any of my own opinions on what we were presented with. I shall attempt to rectify that situation here.
I felt that Telfer's argument for the "less refined" nature of smell and taste was rather weak, at least in biological terms. She seems to discount, and indeed forward, the common misconception that smell and taste and weaker, inferior senses to vision and hearing. This is not the case. Indeed, our senses of smell and taste are capable of many fine distinctions. Some could argue that the art of food is to combine flavors to create a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
We did not yet mention memory. One argument brought up in Telfer's article was that the memory of smell and taste is weaker than that of vision or hearing. This is false. It is a biological fact that smell is a powerful sense linked to memory, due perhaps in part to it having the shortest pathway to our brains. Smell may not be useful for remembering facts from a book, but it is undeniably linked, quite powerfully, to our memories.
As a final note, as this blog is not being kept for credit, I will take a moment to editorialize. I was always under the impression that in a discussion-based college seminar, there would be a tad more civility in the classroom, particularly in regards to making comments. I do not appreciate raising my hand, making eye contact with the professor, and then having someone else start talking before I get the chance to open my mouth. It is rude, disrespectful, and to be frank, I find it quite frustrating. I hate to be the one to harken back to high school, but it is extremely rare for me to find something that frustrates me this much this early in a class. (This last paragraph may later be removed, at Professor Johnson's request.)
I shall close with a discussion question: in the section "Works of Art," Telfer describes the two different ways in which the term "work of art" is commonly used, specifically, as a classifying or evaluative term. Should the term be used in both senses, or is it more appropriate to use one sense over the other exclusively?
I felt that Telfer's argument for the "less refined" nature of smell and taste was rather weak, at least in biological terms. She seems to discount, and indeed forward, the common misconception that smell and taste and weaker, inferior senses to vision and hearing. This is not the case. Indeed, our senses of smell and taste are capable of many fine distinctions. Some could argue that the art of food is to combine flavors to create a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
We did not yet mention memory. One argument brought up in Telfer's article was that the memory of smell and taste is weaker than that of vision or hearing. This is false. It is a biological fact that smell is a powerful sense linked to memory, due perhaps in part to it having the shortest pathway to our brains. Smell may not be useful for remembering facts from a book, but it is undeniably linked, quite powerfully, to our memories.
As a final note, as this blog is not being kept for credit, I will take a moment to editorialize. I was always under the impression that in a discussion-based college seminar, there would be a tad more civility in the classroom, particularly in regards to making comments. I do not appreciate raising my hand, making eye contact with the professor, and then having someone else start talking before I get the chance to open my mouth. It is rude, disrespectful, and to be frank, I find it quite frustrating. I hate to be the one to harken back to high school, but it is extremely rare for me to find something that frustrates me this much this early in a class. (This last paragraph may later be removed, at Professor Johnson's request.)
I shall close with a discussion question: in the section "Works of Art," Telfer describes the two different ways in which the term "work of art" is commonly used, specifically, as a classifying or evaluative term. Should the term be used in both senses, or is it more appropriate to use one sense over the other exclusively?
Thursday, December 4, 2008
On the Nature of Beauty
Well, here it is. The long awaited post on Beauty, and my thoughts on the subject. But where to begin this discussion?
The dictionary shall be my starting point. Dictionary.com's definition of beauty reads the following: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).
This definition gives a good starting point, but it leaves open the question of what exactly that quality is that creates that feeling of pleasure.
I shall postulate here that the qualities of beauty are a combination of nurture and nature. From nature, some reactions must necessarily arise. Such emotions as fear, anger, love, and compassion come directly from nature in order to contribute towards the survival of the species. These primal emotions are triggered by certain characteristics. It is because of this nature that a sad song indeed sounds sad, that a carefully selected color scheme and texture in a painting can draw out our deepest emotions, or, on a human level, that the face of a baby can draw out the parental instinct of (especially female) older humans (which I shall casually refer to as the "awwwww! factor").
Nurture is a much tougher nut to crack. Environment will have an impact on what a person finds aesthetically pleasing. To an older person, the Beatles may have sounded like useless noise as their children wore out records listening to their favorite songs, and we (by which I refer to people of my generation) listen to and enjoy music that our parents may not be able to stomach. In this example, the music we grow up with affects our taste.
How, then, does this relate to Art? Art tries to capture these aspects. Through various means, be it the written word, colors, shapes, hues, tones, chords, etc, Art seeks to capture this spirit of Beauty. I am afraid to call it a mysterious force, but I must, because its ultimate source, the human, is a mysterious being. Is Art Human? No. But it is an extension of humanity, one of the many ways by which we exercise our humanity, our capacities to think, our emotions, and the full range of aspects that set humanity apart from other animals.
The dictionary shall be my starting point. Dictionary.com's definition of beauty reads the following: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).
This definition gives a good starting point, but it leaves open the question of what exactly that quality is that creates that feeling of pleasure.
I shall postulate here that the qualities of beauty are a combination of nurture and nature. From nature, some reactions must necessarily arise. Such emotions as fear, anger, love, and compassion come directly from nature in order to contribute towards the survival of the species. These primal emotions are triggered by certain characteristics. It is because of this nature that a sad song indeed sounds sad, that a carefully selected color scheme and texture in a painting can draw out our deepest emotions, or, on a human level, that the face of a baby can draw out the parental instinct of (especially female) older humans (which I shall casually refer to as the "awwwww! factor").
Nurture is a much tougher nut to crack. Environment will have an impact on what a person finds aesthetically pleasing. To an older person, the Beatles may have sounded like useless noise as their children wore out records listening to their favorite songs, and we (by which I refer to people of my generation) listen to and enjoy music that our parents may not be able to stomach. In this example, the music we grow up with affects our taste.
How, then, does this relate to Art? Art tries to capture these aspects. Through various means, be it the written word, colors, shapes, hues, tones, chords, etc, Art seeks to capture this spirit of Beauty. I am afraid to call it a mysterious force, but I must, because its ultimate source, the human, is a mysterious being. Is Art Human? No. But it is an extension of humanity, one of the many ways by which we exercise our humanity, our capacities to think, our emotions, and the full range of aspects that set humanity apart from other animals.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Art Is NOT Innovation
Creativity, Innovation, and Imagination. Each of these concepts are intimately related, with Imagination at the very core. But where does Creativity become Innovation, and how does this relate to our overarching discussion of the nature of Art?
Creativity and Innovation require Imagination. Without Imagination, the other two cannot possibly exist. Creativity flows from Imagination, and Innovation from Creativity. And Art, of course, requires, first and foremost, Imagination.
Of course, Imagination does not Art make. Imagination must be tamed and captured, expressed, brought into the world by Creativity. And this is where Art ends. Art is Creative; it is not Innovative.
Why? Because of the nature of what Innovation is. Innovation involves taking a creation and mass marketing it, making it readily available for practical, everyday use. To draw an analogy, the cotton gin was first a creation. When it went into production and became widely used in growing cotton, it loses the status of "Creation" and instead gains "Innovation." It is no longer unique.
To draw another analogy, apple pie. The first apple pie was a creation of some imaginitive baker. To make an apple pie NOW is not an act of Creativity unless you are making a new recipe, and even then, it will lose that status of being "Creative" as soon as you copy it and make it a second time, or someone else copies it. Then it is "Innovation." "Creativity" produces a unique, one of a kind object that can never be reproduced. "Innovation" by its very nature is reproducable and reproduced.
Art cannot (and SHOULD NOT) be reduced to the mass-market, watered down status of Innovation. It must by necessity end at Creativity.
Creativity and Innovation require Imagination. Without Imagination, the other two cannot possibly exist. Creativity flows from Imagination, and Innovation from Creativity. And Art, of course, requires, first and foremost, Imagination.
Of course, Imagination does not Art make. Imagination must be tamed and captured, expressed, brought into the world by Creativity. And this is where Art ends. Art is Creative; it is not Innovative.
Why? Because of the nature of what Innovation is. Innovation involves taking a creation and mass marketing it, making it readily available for practical, everyday use. To draw an analogy, the cotton gin was first a creation. When it went into production and became widely used in growing cotton, it loses the status of "Creation" and instead gains "Innovation." It is no longer unique.
To draw another analogy, apple pie. The first apple pie was a creation of some imaginitive baker. To make an apple pie NOW is not an act of Creativity unless you are making a new recipe, and even then, it will lose that status of being "Creative" as soon as you copy it and make it a second time, or someone else copies it. Then it is "Innovation." "Creativity" produces a unique, one of a kind object that can never be reproduced. "Innovation" by its very nature is reproducable and reproduced.
Art cannot (and SHOULD NOT) be reduced to the mass-market, watered down status of Innovation. It must by necessity end at Creativity.
Monday, December 1, 2008
On Creativity and Art
Forgery. It is generally frowned upon by artists and the general public. Even if someone composes an exact copy of a painting, a perfect replica, a perfect forgery, it lacks the same impact of the original. Why is this? Why should this perceptually indistinguishable entity be any less powerful than the original?
Simple. The copy, the forgery, lacks one crucial element that only the original has: creativity. It takes no creativity, only patience and skill to produce a copy of a work already produced; to produce something new requires creativity.
So, then, how does one determine the level of creativity in an object, and what differentiates the art object from the mundane, everyday object that clearly required some creativity at its conception to produce the concept for?
The wikipedia article on creativity gives a good answer to this question in differentiating between "creativity" and "innovation." To paraphrase, creativity is the birth of the idea; innovation is to take the idea and turn it into something practical, usable. This is not to imply that artwork, which is inherently creative, is useless. But innovation generally connotes an object meant for everyday use in everyday tasks; the use of art is in its aesthetic as well as creative value.
Creativity and aesthetic value must go hand in hand to create art. That is not to imply, however, that a high degree of creativity will translate into equal or greater aesthetic value. A very creative person will not always create an aesthetically pleasing piece. This is human nature - imperfection. This does not imply that artwork must be perfect; it merely implies that some work is simply better than others.
How, then, can we determine whether a work is sufficiently creative and aesthetically valuable to earn the honor of recognition as a work of "Art?" I shall leave that to you, my readers, to speculate while I contemplate the question, myself.
Simple. The copy, the forgery, lacks one crucial element that only the original has: creativity. It takes no creativity, only patience and skill to produce a copy of a work already produced; to produce something new requires creativity.
So, then, how does one determine the level of creativity in an object, and what differentiates the art object from the mundane, everyday object that clearly required some creativity at its conception to produce the concept for?
The wikipedia article on creativity gives a good answer to this question in differentiating between "creativity" and "innovation." To paraphrase, creativity is the birth of the idea; innovation is to take the idea and turn it into something practical, usable. This is not to imply that artwork, which is inherently creative, is useless. But innovation generally connotes an object meant for everyday use in everyday tasks; the use of art is in its aesthetic as well as creative value.
Creativity and aesthetic value must go hand in hand to create art. That is not to imply, however, that a high degree of creativity will translate into equal or greater aesthetic value. A very creative person will not always create an aesthetically pleasing piece. This is human nature - imperfection. This does not imply that artwork must be perfect; it merely implies that some work is simply better than others.
How, then, can we determine whether a work is sufficiently creative and aesthetically valuable to earn the honor of recognition as a work of "Art?" I shall leave that to you, my readers, to speculate while I contemplate the question, myself.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Membership in the Artworld
Dickie attempts to counter Weitz's argument of Art as indefinable by providing a list of necessary and sufficient conditions for art. He provides two: artifactuality, and conferred status. Artifactuality is obvious. But who confers the status of artwork? Why, the artworld, of course.
So what the heck is the "artworld," and who are it's members? Dickie gives us a comprehensive list: "artists, producers, museum directors, museum-goers, theater-goers, reporters for newspapers, critics for publications of all sorts, art historians, art theorists, philosophers of art, and others." Wow. Quite the list there.
The better question might be "who ISN'T in the artworld?" Dickie's definition seems to be so ridiculously inclusive that we can ALL be members of the artworld merely by saying that we are thus. Given such a broad definition, whose definition can we possibly trust?
Well, we need not trust any. For the artworld does not confer the status of "Art," but merely "CANDIDATE for appreciation." Dickie goes on to say that "much great art goes unappreciated."
SO WHAT THE HECK DOESN'T QUALIFY AS ART?!?!? Under this definition, a person could take a trash can, overturn it, call it "Art," and that would not only make it a candidate for Art, but to actually BE Art, regardless of whether or not it is appreciated or has any aesthetic value whatsoever. This is not flexibility and openness while giving a closed definition. This is just ridiculous. Thank you, Mr. Weitz (uh... Dickie), for giving us a definition of Art that doesn't define anything at all.
So what the heck is the "artworld," and who are it's members? Dickie gives us a comprehensive list: "artists, producers, museum directors, museum-goers, theater-goers, reporters for newspapers, critics for publications of all sorts, art historians, art theorists, philosophers of art, and others." Wow. Quite the list there.
The better question might be "who ISN'T in the artworld?" Dickie's definition seems to be so ridiculously inclusive that we can ALL be members of the artworld merely by saying that we are thus. Given such a broad definition, whose definition can we possibly trust?
Well, we need not trust any. For the artworld does not confer the status of "Art," but merely "CANDIDATE for appreciation." Dickie goes on to say that "much great art goes unappreciated."
SO WHAT THE HECK DOESN'T QUALIFY AS ART?!?!? Under this definition, a person could take a trash can, overturn it, call it "Art," and that would not only make it a candidate for Art, but to actually BE Art, regardless of whether or not it is appreciated or has any aesthetic value whatsoever. This is not flexibility and openness while giving a closed definition. This is just ridiculous. Thank you, Mr. Weitz (uh... Dickie), for giving us a definition of Art that doesn't define anything at all.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Whose Theory Is It, Anyway?
Danto appears to argue that Art only exists if there is a theory behind it. A person who lacks a theory of art will never look upon Art. However, he leaves one crucial question unanswered: whose theory of Art do we take?
My own thoughts would be thus: each individual should choose that theory of Art that seems correct to them, that theory which agrees with their own knowledge and reasoning. Absent any other indication by Danto, can we assume otherwise?
Of course, a theory need not be set in stone. Danto does point out towards the end of the article that the definition of Art can expand, that is, there can be applied a new predicate to what follows Art. "X is Art because F," or G, or H. And the abilty to add new letters to that, new identifiers of Art (and, by extension, the opposite of such, that is, F and Not F, G and Not G) is what allows the creation of new Art quite unlike anything that has been seen before. This would logically lead to a constantly expanding, evolving theory of Art. But, of course, we are still left with the question of what theory is the proper one.
What say you, my friends? Should we choose that definition, that theory of Art, that most makes sense to us? Or should it be something else, something Danto did not tell us, but may have believed in?
My own thoughts would be thus: each individual should choose that theory of Art that seems correct to them, that theory which agrees with their own knowledge and reasoning. Absent any other indication by Danto, can we assume otherwise?
Of course, a theory need not be set in stone. Danto does point out towards the end of the article that the definition of Art can expand, that is, there can be applied a new predicate to what follows Art. "X is Art because F," or G, or H. And the abilty to add new letters to that, new identifiers of Art (and, by extension, the opposite of such, that is, F and Not F, G and Not G) is what allows the creation of new Art quite unlike anything that has been seen before. This would logically lead to a constantly expanding, evolving theory of Art. But, of course, we are still left with the question of what theory is the proper one.
What say you, my friends? Should we choose that definition, that theory of Art, that most makes sense to us? Or should it be something else, something Danto did not tell us, but may have believed in?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Perceptually Indistinguishable Counterparts
Danto confronts the problem of Perceptually Indistinguishable Counterparts. The strongest example of such, I think, was his reference to the "artwork" Rauschenberg's Bed, a work of art which is, quite literally, a bed spattered with paint.
At first glance, the work appears to merely be a bed that was mutilated in a tragic paint accident. But someone in the artworld, whatever that may be, identified it as a work of art. (Having viewed it myself, I cannot consider it a work of art; but that is another debate. For now, I shall operate under the assumption that it is, indeed, a work of "art.")
How are we to distinguish an average bed from Rauschenberg's Bed? Simply put: it is in the theory of art. Under some working definition of what "Art" is, Rauschenberg's Bed is included in the category of Art, separate and distinct from the general category of "beds."
In other words, these Perceptually Indistinguishable Counterparts are NOT CONCEPTUALLY Indistinguishable Counterparts. It is in the CONCEPTION or THEORY of Art that Art is separated from not Art.
I must admit: this concept makes sense. Having a conception or theory of art that distinguishes Art works from things that are not Art. So the question then becomes: What concept or theory of art should we use? Or must be grapple with that question on our own?
At first glance, the work appears to merely be a bed that was mutilated in a tragic paint accident. But someone in the artworld, whatever that may be, identified it as a work of art. (Having viewed it myself, I cannot consider it a work of art; but that is another debate. For now, I shall operate under the assumption that it is, indeed, a work of "art.")
How are we to distinguish an average bed from Rauschenberg's Bed? Simply put: it is in the theory of art. Under some working definition of what "Art" is, Rauschenberg's Bed is included in the category of Art, separate and distinct from the general category of "beds."
In other words, these Perceptually Indistinguishable Counterparts are NOT CONCEPTUALLY Indistinguishable Counterparts. It is in the CONCEPTION or THEORY of Art that Art is separated from not Art.
I must admit: this concept makes sense. Having a conception or theory of art that distinguishes Art works from things that are not Art. So the question then becomes: What concept or theory of art should we use? Or must be grapple with that question on our own?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Art And Symbolism
In his essay "When Is Art?" Nelson Goodman provides a definitive treatise against the formalist ideal - that of Art without symbolism, Art merely a reflection of itself. In place of this theory, he offers up his theory of exemplification: that all Art is symbolic of something, that it always represents something beyond itself, providing an example of something extrinsic to the work.
As I reflected on this idea, I recalled a poem my class had read in AP English. My classmates and I analysed the given poem looking for some deeper meaning, some symbolism in the poem. After twenty minutes of putting forth theories, our teacher said, "You're all wrong. The point of this poem is this: the author saw a pretty horse and wrote about how it made him feel - what he saw and what he felt."
It made me realize something: not all Art needs to be representative of some larger truth. It can be simply representative merely of thoughts and feelings experienced from seeing a horse on the side of the road, or as complex as a sweeping commentary on the state of society.
And this brings me to the question of symbolism in modern "Art." Can this modern "Art," that tries so hard not to represent anything, really represent nothing? And if it has no representation... can it still be considered "Art?" I think I know how to answer this question... but I will save my own thoughts for a later post. For now, my dear readers, I invite you to provide your own insights on this conundrum.
As I reflected on this idea, I recalled a poem my class had read in AP English. My classmates and I analysed the given poem looking for some deeper meaning, some symbolism in the poem. After twenty minutes of putting forth theories, our teacher said, "You're all wrong. The point of this poem is this: the author saw a pretty horse and wrote about how it made him feel - what he saw and what he felt."
It made me realize something: not all Art needs to be representative of some larger truth. It can be simply representative merely of thoughts and feelings experienced from seeing a horse on the side of the road, or as complex as a sweeping commentary on the state of society.
And this brings me to the question of symbolism in modern "Art." Can this modern "Art," that tries so hard not to represent anything, really represent nothing? And if it has no representation... can it still be considered "Art?" I think I know how to answer this question... but I will save my own thoughts for a later post. For now, my dear readers, I invite you to provide your own insights on this conundrum.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Can There Be Objective Assessment of Taste?
Hume presents an interesting antimoney in his essay. Art is determined largely by taste, and yet most people can agree that some art is clearly better than other (da Vinci being greater than Norman Rockwell, or Shakespeare being greater than Stephen King). How, then, are we to determine what is right, or if indeed Shakespeare is a better author than Stephen King?
The answer is simple. Some artists and art are just better. Taste may be subjective, but there are still some guiding principles that can be used to differentiate good art from bad art.
Rockwell could never copy the tedious care that artists such as da Vinci had to put into each work, carefully blending dyes and hues to create the colors used in their works. Likewise, an author like Stephen King could never measure up to the mastery of language and human nature in a Shakespearean play. But technical mastery is only one element of good art. It must be judiciously applied.
How do you apply technical mastery to thus create good art? Long, hard work, and vision. Rockwell created work to please the masses. King prefers quantity to quality in his work. But the great artists take their time. They work their art to a degree of perfection that most of us can only dream of. To do this takes time and dedication, and produces a work of such quality that it stands the test of time.
This does not mean that some people won't think that Stephen King is a better writer than Shakespeare. It just means that they're wrong. Hume more or less puts out the idea that, just as some art is clearly better than others, some OPINIONS about art are better. I couldn't agree more.
The answer is simple. Some artists and art are just better. Taste may be subjective, but there are still some guiding principles that can be used to differentiate good art from bad art.
Rockwell could never copy the tedious care that artists such as da Vinci had to put into each work, carefully blending dyes and hues to create the colors used in their works. Likewise, an author like Stephen King could never measure up to the mastery of language and human nature in a Shakespearean play. But technical mastery is only one element of good art. It must be judiciously applied.
How do you apply technical mastery to thus create good art? Long, hard work, and vision. Rockwell created work to please the masses. King prefers quantity to quality in his work. But the great artists take their time. They work their art to a degree of perfection that most of us can only dream of. To do this takes time and dedication, and produces a work of such quality that it stands the test of time.
This does not mean that some people won't think that Stephen King is a better writer than Shakespeare. It just means that they're wrong. Hume more or less puts out the idea that, just as some art is clearly better than others, some OPINIONS about art are better. I couldn't agree more.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Art: Is it definable?
What is Art? That is the question. We seek to understand, to know. But can a solid definition of Art ever be arrived at?
Weitz would argue not. Just as there can be no solid definition for what is a "game," the concept of Art is open, constantly evolving, and thus a universal definition would be, by necessity, impossible.
Is this really true? Does Art truly escape definition? There is certainly some validity to this claim. Let us explore it.
Reflecting back on every definition of Art we have looked at previously, each adds a dimension to this concept of Art. (As Freud did not contribute anything to the definition, he is irrelevant to the current discussion.) Plato and his copies of copies, Dewey and intentionality and nature, Tolstoy and communication of feelings - all of these certainly add to the discussion of what Art is, but none can really be exactly placed on Art.
Art can be said to fit every definition. And of course, as new types of Art are created, some critic somewhere will doubtless write a new definition of Art to fit in the new style.
Thus, Art is - gasp! - like a living thing, constantly evolving with the intellects of its creators, and constantly eluding a solid definition. Should we thus stop trying to define it? Absolutely not. It is this constant defining and re-defining that gives Art its nature. And while we will never have a truly solid definition for it... we can certainly try.
Weitz would argue not. Just as there can be no solid definition for what is a "game," the concept of Art is open, constantly evolving, and thus a universal definition would be, by necessity, impossible.
Is this really true? Does Art truly escape definition? There is certainly some validity to this claim. Let us explore it.
Reflecting back on every definition of Art we have looked at previously, each adds a dimension to this concept of Art. (As Freud did not contribute anything to the definition, he is irrelevant to the current discussion.) Plato and his copies of copies, Dewey and intentionality and nature, Tolstoy and communication of feelings - all of these certainly add to the discussion of what Art is, but none can really be exactly placed on Art.
Art can be said to fit every definition. And of course, as new types of Art are created, some critic somewhere will doubtless write a new definition of Art to fit in the new style.
Thus, Art is - gasp! - like a living thing, constantly evolving with the intellects of its creators, and constantly eluding a solid definition. Should we thus stop trying to define it? Absolutely not. It is this constant defining and re-defining that gives Art its nature. And while we will never have a truly solid definition for it... we can certainly try.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
On "Formalism"
Clive Bell believes in Significant Form. This much is clear from his writing. And of course, in his mystical elitism, he sets it up so we can't argue with him. Which won't stop me.
Let us begin by dissecting his argument. "All sensitive people agree that there is a peculiar emotion provoked by works of art." I'll skip past the fallacy of making such a blanket statement and argue with the concept that all sensitive people would agree. First of all... it's a major attack against anyone who might not feel this "peculiar emotion." Does that mean that you're not sensitive, you Philistine? Clive Bell would probably say so. After all, he is among the "elite few," those "sensitive people." Arrogant p...erson.
"The best opinion is on my side." Because, of course, if YOU say your opinion is best, that must make it a fact. Rather than show WHY your opinion is best, you just say that it is. Great way to win an argument, Mr. Bell. Now please stop throwing up these straw men as the foundation of your entire line of philosophical thought.
"This emotion is not disputed by anyone capable of feeling it." Because of course, it's so easy to match a feeling exactly, and it's so DISTINCT from the emotions of life. If this is some secret sort of emotion, summoned up by "mystical, unknown" qualities... how can you be certain that it truly IS separate from the emotions of life?
"A painter too feeble to create forms that provoke more than a little aesthetic emotion will try to eke that little out by suggesting the emotions of life." And what harm, pray tell, is there in suggesting the emotions of life? I always thought of art as something that should help us to EXPLORE those emotions, not ESCAPE them, as Bell suggests "Significant Form" does.
The idea of a completely separate set of emotions, this "aesthetic emotion," is frankly absurd. Why would it only be summoned forth by this "Significant Form," under these whacky "mystical, unknown" forces? Artists are not unique among the species in that they have this sort of hidden talent to tap into this unknown force. Rather, they capture the emotions of life. The idea that FORM comes before EMOTION is as ridiculous as Bell's argument. What, now, arrogant dead guy? What NOW?
Let us begin by dissecting his argument. "All sensitive people agree that there is a peculiar emotion provoked by works of art." I'll skip past the fallacy of making such a blanket statement and argue with the concept that all sensitive people would agree. First of all... it's a major attack against anyone who might not feel this "peculiar emotion." Does that mean that you're not sensitive, you Philistine? Clive Bell would probably say so. After all, he is among the "elite few," those "sensitive people." Arrogant p...erson.
"The best opinion is on my side." Because, of course, if YOU say your opinion is best, that must make it a fact. Rather than show WHY your opinion is best, you just say that it is. Great way to win an argument, Mr. Bell. Now please stop throwing up these straw men as the foundation of your entire line of philosophical thought.
"This emotion is not disputed by anyone capable of feeling it." Because of course, it's so easy to match a feeling exactly, and it's so DISTINCT from the emotions of life. If this is some secret sort of emotion, summoned up by "mystical, unknown" qualities... how can you be certain that it truly IS separate from the emotions of life?
"A painter too feeble to create forms that provoke more than a little aesthetic emotion will try to eke that little out by suggesting the emotions of life." And what harm, pray tell, is there in suggesting the emotions of life? I always thought of art as something that should help us to EXPLORE those emotions, not ESCAPE them, as Bell suggests "Significant Form" does.
The idea of a completely separate set of emotions, this "aesthetic emotion," is frankly absurd. Why would it only be summoned forth by this "Significant Form," under these whacky "mystical, unknown" forces? Artists are not unique among the species in that they have this sort of hidden talent to tap into this unknown force. Rather, they capture the emotions of life. The idea that FORM comes before EMOTION is as ridiculous as Bell's argument. What, now, arrogant dead guy? What NOW?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Nature and Art
I am quite sure that many of you, my dear readers, have on at least one occasion ventured outside and had your auditory senses greeted by an orchestra of bird song. Perhaps some of you even thought it to be pretty. But did you ever consider that this may be Art?
Dewey would, and the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, may well believe it, too, given his extensive work tracing emotions and mental faculties within the animal kingdom. Art. It's in nature, and it's in OUR nature.
If we work from the assumption that Art is in our nature... why, then, would Dewey boldly declare it to be "the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of humanity?" Under that assumption, wouldn't art merely be an expression of our nature, our link to the animal kingdom, far removed from the intellectual capacity that sets us apart from apes or pigs or dogs?
Art may be in our nature. We may see it in the songs of birds, the dams of beavers, the dens of foxes. But in nature, art appears only in forms that are already inherent to the creature in question. With humans, Art manifests itself in new and unexpected ways. Humans use their mental capacities to create new Art, new worlds, new experiences. They form Art in a way a bird never could. Coupled with the conscious self-reflection that is inherent only to humans (at least to our limited yet ever-expanding knowledge), the limits that Art can achieve... do not exist.
And therein lies the hidden nature of Art. It is unconfined, free, ever-expanding. Thus, Art truly is "the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of humanity."
Dewey would, and the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, may well believe it, too, given his extensive work tracing emotions and mental faculties within the animal kingdom. Art. It's in nature, and it's in OUR nature.
If we work from the assumption that Art is in our nature... why, then, would Dewey boldly declare it to be "the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of humanity?" Under that assumption, wouldn't art merely be an expression of our nature, our link to the animal kingdom, far removed from the intellectual capacity that sets us apart from apes or pigs or dogs?
Art may be in our nature. We may see it in the songs of birds, the dams of beavers, the dens of foxes. But in nature, art appears only in forms that are already inherent to the creature in question. With humans, Art manifests itself in new and unexpected ways. Humans use their mental capacities to create new Art, new worlds, new experiences. They form Art in a way a bird never could. Coupled with the conscious self-reflection that is inherent only to humans (at least to our limited yet ever-expanding knowledge), the limits that Art can achieve... do not exist.
And therein lies the hidden nature of Art. It is unconfined, free, ever-expanding. Thus, Art truly is "the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of humanity."
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Pragmatism and Art
Art is anything the artist intends to be Art.
I have just stated what John Dewey may have been trying to say in 10 pages of flowery prose. Reminds me a bit of H. D. Thoreau and his work of several hundred pages expounding on the idea of simplicity, beating it to a blood pulp in an disgustingly elaborate series of analogies of varying degrees of complexity...
Swipes at "Walden" aside, what value might there be in this thought? Can Art really be anything that the "artist" makes with the intention of being "Art?"
At present... I'm suspicious of the idea. Just because the "artist" intends for a work to be "Art" does not necessarily make it "Art."
I could draw a picture with the intention of being an artistic representation of the struggles of man. If the picture amounts to nothing more than a few stick figures and I declare my "Artistic" work complete, does that make it "Art?" Or does "Art" need something more, some additional element to transform the INTENTION into ART?
Wait... isn't that the whole point of this course? Thanks a lot, Mr. Dewey. You've lead me back to the same question we started this course with, and successfully did so without adding anything to it. Unless I just haven't discovered it yet. I'll withhold judgment for the time being. There are too many questions yet to explore.
As a small aside, Freud. Perhaps his views aren't COMPLETELY worthless, but after reading "Civilization and Its Discontents," I do not find much that DOES have value. And I insist that Freud contributes nothing to the discussion of "What is Art?"
I have just stated what John Dewey may have been trying to say in 10 pages of flowery prose. Reminds me a bit of H. D. Thoreau and his work of several hundred pages expounding on the idea of simplicity, beating it to a blood pulp in an disgustingly elaborate series of analogies of varying degrees of complexity...
Swipes at "Walden" aside, what value might there be in this thought? Can Art really be anything that the "artist" makes with the intention of being "Art?"
At present... I'm suspicious of the idea. Just because the "artist" intends for a work to be "Art" does not necessarily make it "Art."
I could draw a picture with the intention of being an artistic representation of the struggles of man. If the picture amounts to nothing more than a few stick figures and I declare my "Artistic" work complete, does that make it "Art?" Or does "Art" need something more, some additional element to transform the INTENTION into ART?
Wait... isn't that the whole point of this course? Thanks a lot, Mr. Dewey. You've lead me back to the same question we started this course with, and successfully did so without adding anything to it. Unless I just haven't discovered it yet. I'll withhold judgment for the time being. There are too many questions yet to explore.
As a small aside, Freud. Perhaps his views aren't COMPLETELY worthless, but after reading "Civilization and Its Discontents," I do not find much that DOES have value. And I insist that Freud contributes nothing to the discussion of "What is Art?"
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
On Dreams
What is a dream? Is it merely the wanderings of the mind while asleep (or perhaps even awake)? Is it a wish? Is it anything at all?
Freud claims that dreams represent "unfulfilled wishes." Going along with his theme of "wishes are for the unhappy," the logical conclusion would be that happy people never dream (or never remember their dreams). I feel this is not the case.
First of all, to call a dream an unfulfilled wish is to imply that one would WANT the events in the dream to happen, on some level. Talking solely from my personal experience, I had a dream once in middle school in which I received a detention for an unmentioned offense. Am I HONESTLY supposed to believe that unconsciously, I WANTED to be in trouble? That I DESIRED a detention? If that is the case, I would concede a certain masochism on my part.
However, I would argue that such is far from the truth. I am opposed to inflicting harm on others, SERIOUS harm, in all but the most extreme circumstances, and would NEVER desire to inflict anything upon myself. From other dreams, the details of which I will not divulge here, Freud would likely diagnose me with sado-masochistic tendencies, I charge I insist is balderdash.
His claim to "universal symbols" in dreams is equally dubious. Any given event, object, color, ANYTHING, in the context of a dream, could not POSSIBLY have a universal meaning. Why? Humanity. For each individual, any given object has a unique meaning that is distinct, personal, perhaps completely opposed to what another individual would see in the same object.
Now that I have laid my case against Freud's preposterous ideas of dreams... how does this relate to art? As Freud argues that art is merely the projection of these dreams and fantasies... it has everything to do with Art. And since Freud's "interpretation" of dreams is worth little more than a lump of cat poo... how am I to take his views on Art seriously? Answer: I do not. Freud is nothing but a Fraud.
Freud claims that dreams represent "unfulfilled wishes." Going along with his theme of "wishes are for the unhappy," the logical conclusion would be that happy people never dream (or never remember their dreams). I feel this is not the case.
First of all, to call a dream an unfulfilled wish is to imply that one would WANT the events in the dream to happen, on some level. Talking solely from my personal experience, I had a dream once in middle school in which I received a detention for an unmentioned offense. Am I HONESTLY supposed to believe that unconsciously, I WANTED to be in trouble? That I DESIRED a detention? If that is the case, I would concede a certain masochism on my part.
However, I would argue that such is far from the truth. I am opposed to inflicting harm on others, SERIOUS harm, in all but the most extreme circumstances, and would NEVER desire to inflict anything upon myself. From other dreams, the details of which I will not divulge here, Freud would likely diagnose me with sado-masochistic tendencies, I charge I insist is balderdash.
His claim to "universal symbols" in dreams is equally dubious. Any given event, object, color, ANYTHING, in the context of a dream, could not POSSIBLY have a universal meaning. Why? Humanity. For each individual, any given object has a unique meaning that is distinct, personal, perhaps completely opposed to what another individual would see in the same object.
Now that I have laid my case against Freud's preposterous ideas of dreams... how does this relate to art? As Freud argues that art is merely the projection of these dreams and fantasies... it has everything to do with Art. And since Freud's "interpretation" of dreams is worth little more than a lump of cat poo... how am I to take his views on Art seriously? Answer: I do not. Freud is nothing but a Fraud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)